PIK Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Elections Canada has laid charges against the Conservative Party and four of its members, including two senators, for supposedly violating election spending rules. But are these charges valid or are they politically motivated? It's a question that needs to be asked because bureaucrats at Elections Canada are not above using the power of the courts to go after people they don't like. I should know. Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Does+Elections+Canada+have+Harper/4381443/story.html#ixzz1GDUac2kx 13 years of chretien's antics and I don't remember one time the EC said boo to him on anything. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
g_bambino Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 But are these charges valid or are they politically motivated? It's a question that needs to be asked because bureaucrats at Elections Canada are not above using the power of the courts to go after people they don't like. I should know. Given that everyone's saying the other parties are no different to the Conservatives in regards to this election funding issue, one does wonder why Elections Canada has suddenly become so vigilant. If all parties were being investigated, I'd have no concerns or questions. But, they're not, as far as it seems. Quote
scouterjim Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) Given that everyone's saying the other parties are no different to the Conservatives in regards to this election funding issue, one does wonder why Elections Canada has suddenly become so vigilant. If all parties were being investigated, I'd have no concerns or questions. But, they're not, as far as it seems. Elections Canada is full of Liberals and NDPers, methinks. Edited March 10, 2011 by scouterjim Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
waldo Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 hey PIK, rather than leave an immediate impression the words in your OP are yours... is there a particular reason you opted not to actually frame your statements as a direct quotation from your linked reference? so... let's see. The most recent, multiple, high-level appointments to Elections Canada have been made by... the Harper Government™... are you perhaps highlighting they didn't get the "right" people assigned? (/snarc) that linked bile piece from Nichols is most interesting - one wonders why Nichols fails to actually highlight the judicial outcome... is it because the Harper led National Citizens Coalition (NCC) actually lost the court challenges; losing all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada? I guess "a win" by Elections Canada kind of takes the steam out of Nichols innuendo that Elections Canada is trying to "get the Harper Government™"... because Elections Canada just isn't content with winning a court decision over Harper/NCC... a decade old now! we should really recap, though: the Harper led NCC (Conservative lobbying group) mounted a court challenge against Elections Act limits on third-party advertising expenses for federal elections... cause, like, uhhh... the limits had sharply restricted the Harper/NCC's attempt to influence federal elections through its own advertising, separate from the political parties. And, again, Harper/NCC lost... so, of course, Nichols (who was at NCC with Harper), would quite naturally spread innuendo and smear, implying Elections Canada is on a decade old "hunt to get Harper... to get the Harper Government™... cause, Elections Canada actually won!!! Quote
waldo Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Elections Canada is full of Liberals and NDPers, methinks. pffft! Quote
Shakeyhands Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Elections Canada has laid charges against the Conservative Party and four of its members, including two senators, for supposedly violating election spending rules. But are these charges valid or are they politically motivated? It's a question that needs to be asked because bureaucrats at Elections Canada are not above using the power of the courts to go after people they don't like. I should know. Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Does+Elections+Canada+have+Harper/4381443/story.html#ixzz1GDUac2kx 13 years of chretien's antics and I don't remember one time the EC said boo to him on anything. Here's an idea.... Play by the rules, not around the periphery and outside, but within them. Then there would be no issues, it's pretty simple actually. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Jack Weber Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 hey PIK, rather than leave an immediate impression the words in your OP are yours... is there a particular reason you opted not to actually frame your statements as a direct quotation from your linked reference? so... let's see. The most recent, multiple, high-level appointments to Elections Canada have been made by... the Harper Government™... are you perhaps highlighting they didn't get the "right" people assigned? (/snarc) that linked bile piece from Nichols is most interesting - one wonders why Nichols fails to actually highlight the judicial outcome... is it because the Harper led National Citizens Coalition (NCC) actually lost the court challenges; losing all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada? I guess "a win" by Elections Canada kind of takes the steam out of Nichols innuendo that Elections Canada is trying to "get the Harper Government™"... because Elections Canada just isn't content with winning a court decision over Harper/NCC... a decade old now! we should really recap, though: the Harper led NCC (Conservative lobbying group) mounted a court challenge against Elections Act limits on third-party advertising expenses for federal elections... cause, like, uhhh... the limits had sharply restricted the Harper/NCC's attempt to influence federal elections through its own advertising, separate from the political parties. And, again, Harper/NCC lost... so, of course, Nichols (who was at NCC with Harper), would quite naturally spread innuendo and smear, implying Elections Canada is on a decade old "hunt to get Harper... to get the Harper Government™... cause, Elections Canada actually won!!! Anything written by Gerry Nichols should be taken for what it is... I figure he's angling for a show on SunTV... "Welcome to Gerry Nichols FREEDOM HOUR!!!!...Brought to you by the National Citizens Coalition!!!" Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Shady Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Anything written by Gerry Nichols should be taken for what it is... I figure he's angling for a show on SunTV... "Welcome to Gerry Nichols FREEDOM HOUR!!!!...Brought to you by the National Citizens Coalition!!!" There you go again. Focusing on the messengers involved, instead of issues at hand. *cough* Koch brothers! *cough* Classic Jack Hypocrisy, CJH for short! That's why declarations from you like these are so entertaining! "The usual suspects" will try to kill the messenger instead of listening to the message... Quote
Jack Weber Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) There you go again. Focusing on the messengers involved, instead of issues at hand. *cough* Koch brothers! *cough* Classic Jack Hypocrisy, CJH for short! That's why declarations from you like these are so entertaining! Interesting Professor.. Could you elucidate for us all the similarities between groups the Koch Bros fund,like the CATO Institute,and the National Citizens Coalition vis a vis thier stance on organized labour??? Then tie this in with what Gerry Nichols said on Michael Coren's show a little over a year ago... (here's a hint,Professor...Individual freedom) And how this relates to RTW legislation in the US... Then you can come back and tell my I'm being hypocritical.. This should be fun,Professor..The last time you tried something like this it did'nt go so well for you... Remember when yo made the claim I was a "Left Wing Ideologue"? Edited March 10, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Battletoads Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 The conservatives commited election fraud, plain and simple. TI find it funny that conservative party boosters want to crack down on non-existant crime, and at the same time want everyone to ignore their own parties law breaking. Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
scribblet Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Elections Canada has laid charges against the Conservative Party and four of its members, including two senators, for supposedly violating election spending rules. But are these charges valid or are they politically motivated? It's a question that needs to be asked because bureaucrats at Elections Canada are not above using the power of the courts to go after people they don't like. I should know. Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Does+Elections+Canada+have+Harper/4381443/story.html#ixzz1GDUac2kx 13 years of chretien's antics and I don't remember one time the EC said boo to him on anything. To my knowledge they didn't, so why now, it's also strange how the charges came immediately before the court decision - did they know ahead of time or what... Only those with their heads in their sand and elsewhere - refuse to admit that all parties did it. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
William Ashley Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) This is like asking if cops have it in for murderors and rapists. Also get it into your head THAT IT ISN'T ELECTIONS CANADA WHO LAID THE CHARGES.. it is the OFFICE FOR PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS - a sub branch of the Attorney General of Canada's Office AKA Rob Nicholson the Conservaitve member for Niagara Falls. This isn't politically motivated. Also you should clarify what charges you are refering to. http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/bas/abt-suj.html The PPSC fulfills the responsibilities of the Attorney General of Canada in the discharge of his criminal law mandate by prosecuting criminal offences under federal jurisdiction and by contributing to strengthening the criminal justice system. "just an accounting issue" This is Harper not understanding that charges in this case arn't about the tax payer. HARPER IT AIN'T THIS ONE: To set or ask (a given amount) as a price IT IS THIS ONE: "A criminal charge is a formal accusation made by a governmental authority asserting that somebody has committed a crime." Someone tell the numbskull. Edited March 10, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
fellowtraveller Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 The Liberals would have done it if only they had some money. Quote The government should do something.
Jack Weber Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 The Liberals would have done it if only they had some money. Probably true... The fact is they did'nt... The Conservatives have been in power for 5 years... They own all of their problems by themselves. Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Bryan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 The Liberals would have done it if only they had some money. They did do it though, that's the issue. Why the witch hunt against the CPC when they were only doing the standard practice that all parties did? Quote
SF/PF Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 They did do it though, that's the issue. Why the witch hunt against the CPC when they were only doing the standard practice that all parties did? Again this claim, with nothing to back it up. It has been pointed out in several threads now the differences between the schemes that various parties participated in. Not all "in-and-out" schemes are created equal. Quote Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
Bryan Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Again this claim, with nothing to back it up. It has been pointed out in several threads now the differences between the schemes that various parties participated in. Not all "in-and-out" schemes are created equal. You're the one with nothing to back up your claim. I gave several examples showing the other parties doing exactly the same thing. Quote
SF/PF Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 You're the one with nothing to back up your claim. I gave several examples showing the other parties doing exactly the same thing. You clearly don't understand which part of the scheme is illegal. Quote Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
SF/PF Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 From Wikipedia The current scandal, which the term "in and out" now largely applies, refers to a scheme implemented by the Conservative Party in the 2006 elections, the very elections that prevented passage of the bill outlawing the practice.In this case of "in and out", it is held that the scheme was not only intended as a method of gaining additional income, but also as a way to avoid limitations on campaign spending at the national level. Having reached their $18.3 million advertising limit, the party transferred $1.3 million dollars to 67 riding offices that had not yet reached their own $80,000 limit.[2] The ridings then returned the money to the party, stating that it was being used to purchase advertising. The ads in question were identical to the party's national ads with the exception of a "paid for by..." message in small print that was added to the end of the ad in post-production. Perhaps the problem in understanding is that the scandal is misnamed. The legal problem isn't the "in-and-out" part, its the "exceeding-federal-campaign-spending-limits" part. Of course, this is a problem, too: Noticing that the invoices were all from a single company in Toronto, Retail Media, they became suspicious and Commissioner William Corbett started an investigation. Investigator Ronald Lamothe questioned Retail Media about the invoices, notably one for $39,999.91 sent Steve Halicki's campaign for the riding of York South-Weston. The invoice was on Retail Media letterhead, yet Retail Media stated that they dealt only with the party and "did not generate invoices to candidates or electoral districts."[4] The CEO even went so far to claim that "the invoice must have been altered or created by someone, because it did not conform to the appearance of invoices sent by Retail Media to the Conservative Party of Canada with respect to the media buy."[5] Quote Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
August1991 Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) Elections Canada is full of Liberals and NDPers, methinks.Most people working in the federal bureaucracy do not like Harper or the Conservatives.Most people working in the public sector/government bureaucracy are left wing. If you were socialist/"progressive", would you apply to work at a bank or open a fast-food franchise? Or would you apply to work at Elections-Canada? Well, not entirely. Some bureaucrats become right wing when they see how governments/bureaucracy operate. I'm sure some bureaucrats at Elections Canada applaud Harper secretly. "Secretly" is the key word. They live in the world of Solzhenitsyn: a dissident is a pro-Harper public servant bureaucrat. ---- In short, a media/bureaucratic elite/cabal in Toronto/English Montreal/Ottawa now hates/loathes/wants to destroy Harper and his ilk. Harper would be advised to tread carefully. Edited March 15, 2011 by August1991 Quote
Bryan Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Perhaps the problem in understanding is that the scandal is misnamed. The legal problem isn't the "in-and-out" part, its the "exceeding-federal-campaign-spending-limits" part. Nobody exceeded their limits, that's why they did the transfers-- so that they could bring their spending UP to the limit. And they all did EXACTLY the same thing. Quote
Saipan Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Does Elections Canada have it in for Harper? CBC definitely does. Quote
SF/PF Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Nobody exceeded their limits, that's why they did the transfers-- so that they could bring their spending UP to the limit. And they all did EXACTLY the same thing. Read it again. I'm not sure how else I can explain the glaringly obvious difference that is explicitly stated in the link I provided. Quote Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
DrGreenthumb Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 The Conservatards in this thread need to loosen their tinfoil hats a couple of notches. Quote
August1991 Posted March 17, 2011 Report Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) The Conservatards in this thread need to loosen their tinfoil hats a couple of notches.Most people who work in the federal civil service (any government service) are "left wing" by self-selection. And that includes the CBC/Radio-Canada."Tinfoil hat"? DrGreenThumb, let me explain my viewpoint in a different way. If you were in favour of Quebec independance, what career path would you choose? Would you choose to work for an English-Canadian firm or an American firm? Would you apply to work for the Quebec government, or the federal government? Edited March 17, 2011 by August1991 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.